— Isadora

The founders didn’t indicate that media had to be something other than intransigent and irresponsible. The free-press guarantee exists so that no higher arbiter than journalists themselves can decide what gets published and circulated. Self-appointed arbiters such as your organization aren’t described in the First Amendment. The amendment means we can, if we decide, publish bald-faced lies if we want (and many do). The balance is that reputable news organizations would do their best to try to find and publish the truth, elusive as it can be. Unscrupulous journalists could publish lies but could also be sued successfully in civil (not criminal) court and, as a consequence, would be forced out of business (as has happened in the British press the past few years). By the way, for what it’s worth, I intended to have my full name and identity used in my earlier post. It’s Mike Henderson, Crosscut.com. My humble suggestion to you, John: Spend more time and effort trying to support journalism rather than adjudicating what you hope others will agree to be failings of the profession.

— MikeH

Just for the record, MikeH, the Washington News Council has hardly been “ignored” since we began in 1998. Ask Secretary of State Sam Reed, King County Sheriff Sue Rahr, ElderHealth Northwest, the Washington State Beef Commission and Dairy Products Commission, and many others who have come to us with legitimate complaints about inaccurate, unfair and damaging news stories. Do we have a high profile? No. But that’s fine. We provide an invaluable service to those who need help when they have nowhere else to turn in the face of irresponsible and intransigent media. We’re all strong defenders of the First Amendment and would oppose any government regulation or control of the news media. That’s why we’re a 501c3 nonprofit that takes no public funds. That’s why the council is made up of volunteers — both media members and public members — who care deeply about having high-quality news media in this state. Visit http://www.wanewscouncil.org to learn more. As for the “maybe, maybe not…redundancy,” look again: Three questions, three answers. Not a redundancy at all, my friend.

— John Hamer

Loneliness would seem to be the natural social predicament of a “journalist” who launched an organization (largely and mercifully ignored for a decade now) intended to be insinuated between the lines of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You lament the lack of press coverage of the event you attended. Then, given the nearly limitless space provided by the legitimate news organization Crosscut.com, you neglect to let the reader know much that you wanted journalists to tell you about the event at which you were so lonely. For the record, “maybe, maybe not” is a redundancy. When you use it twice, it’s a redundancy, it’s a redundancy.

— MikeH